US dilemma over which rogue states to take on

By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor

12:01AM BST 15 Sep 2001

WHEN Washington says it wants to lead an all-out assault on international terrorism and "get states out of the business of supporting terrorism" there is no shortage of candidates. But America cannot take them all on and will have to choose which rogues are the most dangerous.

Top of the list is Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which has provided shelter and training bases for Islamic radicals working throughout the world. These include Osama bin Laden, whose network of militants is believed to have cells operating in 34 countries.

Over the years, Washington's focus on terrorism has moved steadily eastwards, first in Lebanon then to Iran and now to Afghanistan.

But after the attacks, American officials have been quick to issue an ultimatum to Islamabad: cut off the Taliban and take "the side of the civilised world" or be regarded as a rogue state and bear the consequences.

Similar messages are being given to seven other governments that are formally listed as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. But stark perspective in Washington may cause problems even for close allies such as Britain.

Tony Blair could now face stern questions over Britain's policy of "engagement" with countries such as Iran, Libya and North Korea. While America has renewed sanctions against Tripoli and Teheran, Britain has re-established diplomatic relations after years of confrontation.

Iran has long been regarded as the most dangerous state sponsor of terrorism, providing support to a web of groups including Hizbollah. It also backs Palestinian radical groups, especially Islamic Jihad and Hamas, both Muslim factions responsible for suicide bombings in Israel.

But Teheran may respond to American wooing. The moderate President Mohammad Khatami has denounced the attacks on America and called for a global campaign against terrorism.

Teheran's help, or at least its acquiescence, is also necessary for America to contain Iran's other neighbour, Iraq, for many in the West the prime candidate for attention. Baghdad, the only country openly to gloat over the devastation in America, has been under UN sanctions for a decade because of the threat it poses to oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Sudan, which was the target of retaliatory cruise missiles attacks after the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, is now a signatory of international anti-terrorism conventions.

Syria provides safe haven for a constellation of Palestinian rejectionists, including Marxist and Islamic factions. But it has been treated more leniently by America, which benefited from Syrian support during the Gulf war.

In all these countries, except Iraq, governments are weighing up their options: on which side of America's war against terrorism will they stand?